Originally Posted by Murad
I am with BCCI on this. Without Snickometer and Hot Spot camera, DRS sucks. Most of the time we see 3rd umpires can't even find if the ball touched the bat or not.

Hot spot and Snicko are there in England. But BCCI still refuses to use the DRS simply because it will mean they can no longer take advantage of all the "wrong" decisions which go in their favour 90% of the time.

N Srinivasan, the BCCI secretary, has reiterated the board's stance against the DRS, saying it was not convinced the technology used at present was accurate all the time and that the resistance would continue until further improvements were made.

"Nothing much has changed since we first opposed it. We welcome technology when it is 100% error-free," Srinivasan told the Indian Express. "In this case it is not, so we would continue to oppose the implementation of the DRS."

The BCCI has been consistent in its refusal to use the system - most recently for India's upcoming tour of England - since it was first trialled in the India-Sri Lanka Test series in 2008. Sachin Tendulkar is often named as one of two Indian players (captain MS Dhoni the other) who are resistant to the referral system and therefore tacitly responsible for the BCCI's opposition of the DRS. Tendulkar told ESPNcricinfo that while he was not against the use of technology, the DRS needed the support of Snickometer and Hot Spot to make it more consistent.

Srinivasan, however, said the BCCI's stand had not changed despite the growing support for the system.

"They [the players] are entitled to their opinion and they can express it as well. But the BCCI is a structured organisation. Yes, we are always open to ideas but we make our own decisions.

"Everyone has their own choice and we cannot question them. At the same time, we have our own ideas and we would stick to our decision till further improvements are made."

Srinivasan said the BCCI had no objection to Snickometer or Hot Spot, but was not convinced about the accuracy of Hawk Eye, which is one of the technological aids used in the DRS.

"The Hawk-Eye is yet to convince us. This is a technology that deals with the projection, trajectory and angle of the ball. And from where the cameras are placed, it cannot give a foolproof solution.

"We raised these issues when the company had made a presentation in Chennai and no one was completely certain about its accuracy," he said. "This technology is basically based on assumption, which comes in the way of the judgment of the umpires, which we think is not good for the game. So, for us to approve the DRS, it has to be totally error-free."

The Decision Review System (DRS) is likely to be the focal point at the ICC's five-day annual conference that begins on Sunday in Hong Kong. The ICC's cricket committee had unanimously recommended the use of the DRS in all Tests, but the system has been a source of disagreement among the boards, with the BCCI opposing its implementation.

"The ICC cricket committee is in favour of employing DRS in all formats of the game," ICC chief Haroon Lorgat said ahead of the conference. "They were quite impressed with the success in terms of all the research and feedback they received. It was very strongly evaluated during the cricket committee meeting in May, and after long deliberation they were unanimous in supporting the application of DRS across all forms of the game."

The cricket committee also proposed changes to enhance the ODI format - stricter penalties for over-rate offences and amendments to the law pertaining to runners - all of which will come up for discussion in Hong Kong.

The other issue likely to dominate proceedings is the revaluation of the ICC's decision to restrict the 2015 World Cup to its 10 Full Member nations. "The board had decided earlier that 2015 will be a 10-team Member World Cup, but that did not go down well and the president [Sharad Pawar] decided to reconsider the topic," Lorgat said. "I do support that there should be some sort of qualification process for all members to get to the World Cup. I do favour a 10-team World Cup with a qualification process."

Also on the agenda are possible amendments to the ICC's constitution, aimed at ensuring free elections of Member boards and avoiding undue government interference in administration. "We are going to discuss the concept of Member boards ensuring there is no government interference in the sport, that they are able to hold free elections and make appointments of members to the boards from among themselves," Lorgat said. "In other words it [needs to be] a democratic process, where elections are free, and people who are elected come in to administer the sport." The Pakistan board had sent a legal notice to the ICC raising questions - and threatening legal action - over this proposed amendment. The PCB is one of the boards directly affected by the amendment. Its constitution states that the President of Pakistan - invariably but not always a political figure - is the patron of the board and the sole authority in hiring or firing the chairman.

The ICC's full council will also consider a constitutional change to the process of nominating and electing the ICC president. Under the new proposal, the executive board will decide the process and term of office from time to time, subject to certain qualifying criteria. This would replace the current rotational system of nomination and the fixed term of appointment. Pakistan and Bangladesh - the two members who are to nominate the next candidates for president and vice-president - are believed to have objected to the change.

"There is a view from among boards that the best person should be nominated as the president," Lorgat said. However, he said that "for a constitutional change to go through, you need 38 of the 50 members supporting the change, and of the 38, eight will have to be Full Members, so it is quite a hurdle to cross".

The inclusion of cricket in the Olympic games is one of the peripheral issues that will be discussed. "We need to do a proper and scientific evaluation of cricket's participation the Olympic games," Lorgat said. "We need to do this evaluation to put this debate once and for all to rest, and on a scientific basis prove that there is a case for participation, or no case."

Lorgat also expressed his satisfaction with the Pakistan security task force set up after the attack on the Sri Lankan team in Lahore in February 2009. "I am encouraged by the work and results I have seen through the engagement of the Pakistan task team with the PCB, and I hope the PCB themselves feel as excited as I do about the contents of that report. It is a very thorough report, and we will be tabling what I would hope to be the final report.

"Once the board reviews it, and the PCB accepts and hopefully implements the recommendations in a manner they have done before, we can conclude the work of the team."

Can’t understand the clamour for the UDRS system Niranjan Shah | Saturday, June 25, 2011

I fail to understand the clamour and paranoia for the Umpires Decision Review System (UDRS). It is neither 100% accurate, nor foolproof. You can probably improve a decision or two with it and for such marginal gains one cannot spend so much money on one company.

You have to look at the economics. Every board is not making money out of Test matches and ODIs. The system requires about $60,000 per match.

Last year, about 65 Tests and 170 ODIs were played around the world. Multiply those numbers with $60,000. It would be a staggering amount for one or two decisions in a match. I see some vested interests working here. Unless there are 10 different technologies and they become competitive and cheaper, we cannot adopt.
A $1,000 a day should be fine. Not $60,000 a day.

That kind of money should go into the development of the game among the associate members. Cricket has survived for so long without the help of technology. If you look back, there were a whole lot of Pakistan umpires. The game has survived still. You have to see at what cost the technology comes.

Football is 10 times more popular than cricket and FIFA is 10 times richer than the ICC. Yet, they are not using the goal-line cameras. We heard of horrendous errors in the football World Cup and yet FIFA has not embraced the technology. The human element cannot be eliminated from the game. It has to be part and parcel of any sport. Always.

The UDRS cannot be used for the whole game. You can review two or three decisions in an innings. If a team exhausts its options in the very first over, what happens then? For the rest of the innings, the team has to live without the system. If you can’t have the system for the whole match, what is the use?

If you want to use the technology throughout the match, then the game will never finish because the batsmen and bowlers will go on appealing. If there is a restriction, it won’t justify the cost. Only the first few batsmen get the advantage. The others don’t. Where is the fairness?

The ICC can come up with such technology because the money is not going from its coffers. The member boards have to pay for it. There might be some matches in the world where the money coming in from the ticket collection will be less than the amount spent on UDRS.

Even the accuracy level of the system is suspect. I’m told that the accuracy of the system has gone up to 97% from 92%. It is not 100 per cent still. I cannot fathom so much money spent for so little returns. I strongly defend the stand taken by the BCCI.

The BCCI president has come up with right explanation. It is the imagination of one technology versus the imagination of the umpire. They have to prove on what basis the tracking is going on, because every square centimetre of the pitch is different. If there is a human error, take the umpire to task.

You may ask me why we are not agreeing to the use of technology for our overseas series. It is because of our policy of consistency. We can’t have it when we travel and not have it, when we host matches.

I know the ICC cricket committee has recommended its implementation. But one should take note of the number of times they change the laws of the game. You see how many times the rules were changed in football and other popular games. You have to be consistent because the law has to be there in the public mind for a long time. The public get confused if you change the laws for the sake of changing.

(Niranjan Shah is a vice-president of the BCCI. He spoke to Vijay Tagore)